Our goal continues to be to provide a forum for active discussion on seminal topics. The issue of historical Adam and Eve is extremely important to all of us. Scientific data now seem to dispel any alternative theories allowing for a one-couple human ancestry from the biological perspective. How does this impact our faith?

We encourage active and open discussion in this forum by ASA members to reflect the wide spectrum of views within our membership even as we are united in the body of Christ.

Specifically, members are encouraged to use this forum to comment on the following issues:

1. Is your own understanding of the Bible in conflict with the scientific views of the origin of humans? Your church’s? How are you dealing with it?
2. What actions do you feel are needed to make progress in this issue? What role can ASA play in bringing clarity to this issue?

First here is how the results came in for the membership as a whole:

With 2/3 of our members accepting evolution of humans it’s probably pretty surprising to your average church goer. Is it the evil secular universities that Expelled railed against? We can look and see how the answers differed for those who attended secular or Christian universities.

My columns correspond to:

1. The Universe is 14 billion years old
2. The Earth is 4.6 billion years old.
3. Natural evolution. That is plants and animals evolved with natural causes.
4. Generic evolution. That is plants and animals evolved through either natural or non-natural causes. This is calculated by counting up who answered yes to either the natural or non-natural question.
5. Human evolution.

I’ve included a bar called all in all my charts so that the average response can be compared.

Nope. No difference. Another thing to explore is whether there is any difference between scientists who are currently employed full time and those who are retired. Presumably the former would be more aware of the current state of the evidence since they are in the thick of it.

So, at least in the minds of those who are currently full-time scientists, the state of the evidence is moving in the direction of natural and human evolution. The difference between the full-time scientists and the retired ones is 13-14%.

Now let’s look at the employers of the scientists. Since origins is basic and not applied research those who are in education, government, and medical should be more aware of the state of the evidence over and against industry and ministry.

Education, government, and medical all cluster together. I haven’t talked about the age of the Earth or Universe since there is mostly agreement regardless of category. Here we have a drop in support for an old Universe by those in the medical field. Hmm. We see more profound drops in support of natural evolution: 17% for industry and 31% for ministry. Human evolution drops 16% and 29% respectively.

Finally, let’s test my hypothesis that differences in opinions stems from differences in familiarity with the evidence by looking at the specific domain experts. I will look at full-time biologists, geologists, and physicists/astronomers. I will include engineers as a group of non-experts with which to compare.

100% of the physicists/astronomers affirm an ancient Universe and 100% of full-time geologists affirm an ancient Earth. 80% of full-time biologists affirm natural evolution and human evolution and 88% of them affirm generic evolution. The difference from engineers is 30% for natural evolution, 18% for generic evolution, and 24% for human evolution. The degree to which there is a difference of opinions on origins is not related to whether Christian scientists went to a Christian or secular school. Rather, it is related to the degree of familiarity with the scientific evidence. The greater the familiarity, the greater the degree of acceptance of mainstream science on origins.

So far, I’ve limited myself to areas where there is scientific consensus. The questions above are more in the developing stage where there is some evidence but more work needs to be done. See my blog post for one example. We still see a similar pattern where the domain experts see more of the evidence, probably because it’s more obscure. Still, only the OOL evidence was sufficient to warrant a bare majority (51%) of the experts. Multiverses were the exception where the physicists/astronomers scored it lower than the non-experts.

CORRECTION:

In the comments our executive director, Randy Isaac, noted a flaw in how I did the calculation and Doug Hayworth noticed my graph format was not helpful (N.B. for those who are unfamiliar with peer review Terry’s, Randy’s, and Doug’s comments are similar to what happens in the peer review process. The difference between this and real peer review is the intensity of the review and the domain expertise of the reviewers.) Randy noted that roughly 8% did not choose to affirm any of the statements. I interpreted this as no answer and didn’t include them in the calculations. For example, a young earth creationist would presumably also not select any of the options and by treating it the way I did his response would not be counted. So, the better approach is to treat this situation as “none of the above”. Treating none of the above as a proxy for YEC and since a non-domain experts maybe hesitant to give an exact answer to the age questions, 8% is probably the upper limit of YEC in our organization.

So, I redid the calculations and here are the comparisons.

There is still no real difference based on going to a Christian or secular college. This doesn’t explain any difference of views.

There is a 14% difference on evolution based on natural causes in the original calculation and 13% with the new one. The difference for human evolution 13% and 12% respectively.

The difference between education and ministry is 31% for the old calculation and 28% for the new for evolution with natural causes. The differences are 29% and 26% respectively for human evolution.

Expertise is the only area where the new calculation shows any substantive differences. 7% of the full-time biologists affirmed none of the statements. All the full-time geologists picked at least one of the statements and all affirmed an old earth. Engineers, physicists and geologists had a response rate than the biologists and had a higher response to the age of the Universe question.

For the old calculation, there is a 30% difference for the natural evolution statement between biologists and engineers and a 31% difference between geologists and engineers. For the new calculation this changes to 27% and 33%. Human evolution showed similar small changes between the new and old calculations.

So, my original thesis still appears to hold. Employed scientists are more likely to accept the consensus science than retired ones. Scientists employed in areas that are more likely to do basic science, likewise. Finally, the areas of expertise closest to the areas of age of the earth and evolution are also more likely to accept this than areas that are further away. Going to a Christian college versus a secular one has no bearing on whether the mainstream science is accepted.

His statements seem to be stating the obvious to many Christians in science.  But the fact that the seminary was so upset over these statements that Dr. Waltke felt he had to give up his job over this, because of his desire to honor and protect the seminary, and that the seminary felt compelled to accept his resignation, is extremely disturbing.  Whether or not one agrees with Waltke’s views, his sudden departure speaks of fear and defensiveness on the part of evangelical leadership, rather than reasoned and appreciative engagement.    Dr. Waltke has written some clarifying statements to reiterate his orthodox views regarding the the inerrancy of Scripture and the historical Adam and Eve, and to reaffirm his belief that an evolutionary process of God’s creation is entirely in line with these views.    Nevertheless, as of this writing, the outcome for his seminary professorship has not changed.

What message does this send to seminarians trying to understand the full spectrum of beliefs about harmonizing Scriptural interpretation with scientific discovery amongst committed Christian scholars?    What message does this send to young Christians in science, or those considering entering the study of science, wanting to explore nature freely?   How can scientists and theologians and clergy better understand one another, if there is a real fear of losing one’s job as a penalty for open discussion?    What message does this send to non-Christians regarding the Truth-seeking of believers?

And how can Christian institutions retain a confessional faith identity while yet nurturing and encouraging honest and open scholarship and dialogue?

For more background, see articles in USA Today, BioLogos, and the Gospel Coalition.

Jennifer Wiseman

But they asked one interesting question that I have not been able to deal with: “Why these difficulties in the first place, Lord? Why did God choose to give his Word in such a way that would result in many, many of his sincere, godly, and well-intentioned followers foolish and embarrassingly mistaken? Could God not have chosen to communicate the creation event (and possibly other early Genesis material) in a different (though grand) way that did not ‘fool’ droves of his earnest children? . . . Not only does it seem like God hid (an aspect of) biblically-related truth from his own, but also ensured that his witnesses looked pretty dumb in the process. I’m just grieved by all this and don’t know how to deal with it.”

Any suggestions on how to respond or pointers to authors who have responded would be greatly appreciated.

Paul Bruggink

On Sunday March 21 from 5pm to 7pm, the committee will hold a press conference to talk about some of the reactions. Our committee met last June in a stimulating session sharing each of our representative groups’ potential reaction to the exhibit. We were able to view some of the back room activities in the museum as well as look at the exhibit construction in progress. We will meet again on March 21 and 22 and be able to view the final product. Those of you who are planning to come to the ASA meeting in Washington DC are encouraged to take the time to visit the exhibit.

To help me provide some input at the March 21-22 meeting, I’d appreciate your browsing the website and submitting your comments here.

An Origins Parable

Over the years, there has been a great deal of blood spilled, or at least ink spilled, over the creation science and origins debates. What follows is an “intelligently designed” attempt to illustrate the differences between various positions on origins, using a somewhat humorous but generally accurate parable. This is presented in the form of position statements on the fictitious but highly controversial “embryology versus Bible” debate.

BACKGROUND

The science of embryology says that a baby is formed through natural processes, starting with the “conception” when a sperm cell joins with an egg cell. These two cells join their DNA and subdivide into multiple cells, which becomes a fetus. Over time, the fetus grows in size through cellular division, and various biological structures gradually develop into distinctive body parts. After approximately nine months, a normal pregnancy will come to full term, and the baby is born.

By contrast, the Bible declares that babies are made by God. Psalm 139:13-14 (NIV) declares, “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.” Also, “Thus saith the Lord, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the Lord that maketh all things” (Isaiah 44:24); and “Did not he that made me in the womb make him? and did not one fashion us in the womb?” (Job 31:15).

Does God create babies, or are they formed through gradual biological processes? The following statements outline various theological positions in this controversy.

ATHEISM / MATERIALISM

Babies are formed through purely natural processes of biological development. These processes can be studied and examined scientifically, and follow regular patterns of natural cause and effect. There is no reason to think that a divine being or miraculous intervention are required in order to help this process along. Physical matter is all there is, and nature is quite capable of getting the job done without the action of a god or gods.

NEW ATHEISM

Same as above, and anyone who still believes God is involved in the process of human birth is either a lunatic, an idiot, or both.

YOUNG EMBRYO CONCEPTIONISM (YEC) with APPEARANCE OF AGE and CATASTROPHISM

The godless embryologists tell us that babies are formed through naturalistic processes in the absence of God. This is known as “materialism”. They also mistakenly believe that babies are formed gradually over a process of many months, which is based on their naturalistic assumption of “uniformitarianism” – the belief that processes of biological development only take place uniformly and gradually. Yet they have no explanation for all the complex interactions that lead to the development of the various systems in our bodies.

Holy scripture, on the other hand, declares that God knits us together in our mother’s womb, and that He is the creator and maker of our physical bodies as well as our souls. Who are we to believe, human scientists with limited and incomplete knowledge, or God who knows all things and has declared Himself to be our Maker?

Since God is all-powerful, there is no reason to believe that He needed all those months and laborious activity in order to create a human body. Whereas secular, anti-Christian science declares that it takes nine months for a baby to form, the Christian assumption of “catastophism” says that things don’t have to necessarily happen slowly over long periods of time, but can actually develop quickly through a rapid succession of stages. New research indicates that babies may actually be formed in about ten seconds through a rapid process of development, not the nine months as generally assumed by materialistic scientists. All the presumed length of time and gradual steps of development over months of time, including the detailed history implanted in the memory of the mother, sonagram pictures, and doctor’s office records, actually just indicate an appearance of age and not actual age. God creates babies in ten seconds and implants a supernatural soul just before their eventual birth, but due to the effects of “appearance of age” it merely seems like it has taken place over a long period of time.

OLD EMBRYO CONCEPTIONISM (OEC)

The science of embryology is generally correct with respect to the physical sequence of the creation of babies, including the time of development from conception to birth, and the processes of fertilization, implantation, and gradual biological development. Yet science cannot explain exactly how the body of a fetus develops new body parts and internal organs, the development of the complexities of the eye, the circulatory and immune systems, etc. All they can do is presume that nature is capable of doing these things in the absence of God, without providing any sort of complete explanation.

Scripture provides the answer to these problems that continue to stump materialistic scientists. It says that God forms us in our mother’s womb, but it also says that God “fashions” us, using language similar to the working of an artisan, such as a potter. A potter uses raw materials such as clay and the spinning motion of a potter’s wheel, yet he imparts intelligent action at various points in order to shape the clay. In the same way, naturalistic forces and materials by themselves are unable to account for all the amazing complexity of the human body. God intercedes at various points during the process of fetal development in order to miraculously create elements of bodily function, yet in between times, He allows the natural process of biological development to proceed in normal fashion. Most notably is the injection of the human soul, which is an act of divine fiat and cannot be explained in naturalistic terms.

INTELLIGENT DESIGN (ID)

The intricate processes and systems in the human body are amazingly complex and cannot be accounted for in terms of materialistic assumptions. Systems such as the human eye, DNA, immune system, etc., have surprising levels of complexity and specificity which are best viewed in terms of information theory, using Shannon’s theorems. The degree of complex specified information (CSI) present in DNA and many other biological structures and systems are best explained as a designed system that originated from some intelligent source, rather than through a series of random, chance events.

Intelligent design is a scientific claim about design being evidenced by the information content, not a theological or philosophical claim. ID makes no claims as to the identity of the “intelligent designer” — it might have been from a God or gods, an alien, or possibly an intelligent stork that is capable of producing these designed features within an otherwise natural process. ID also makes no statement as to the length of fetal development — it could be ten seconds or nine months, but that conclusion is beyond the kind of scientific assertion that ID is able to make.

THEISTIC EMBRYOLOGY (TE)

The science of embryology is very well developed and has a great deal of accurate knowledge of bodily processes inherent in the development and birth of a child. While science cannot (and perhaps never will) have complete knowledge of every detailed step in this developmental process, the general conclusion that human fetal development occurs through essentially natural processes seems to be an inescapable conclusion based on the evidence at hand. There is no reason to assume that supernatural miracles are necessary in order to progress a fetus from one stage of development to another, and science continues to fill in gaps in our limited human knowledge as to the details of this process.

However, science is limited to studying only the natural, “secondary” causes and effects, and has nothing whatsoever to say about the presence or absence of a divine Creator. The belief in a divine Creator is a theological position, which is entirely justified based on the evidence, but which can neither be conclusively proven nor disproven by science. Among the evidences that point to a divine creator is the very fact that something exists rather than nothing, and the fact that life bears evidence of a beginning and progress toward a final end, rather than an eternal self-existence. As theists, we absolutely believe that God is the Creator and sustainer of all things, including fetal development, and that He is the “primary cause” of all things. The fact that He chooses to create human bodies through a progression of apparently natural, secondary causes is not surprising, because that is how all of nature appears to work from a scientific point of view.

Theistic Embryologists differ over the degree or manner of God’s involvement in fetal development. Some believe that God’s providence is universally and completely present within and through all things at all times, so that the development of a fetus is simultaneously the work of Providence (primary cause) and natural processes (secondary causes). Others prefer a view known as “front-loading” or “fully gifted conception”, which holds that God only needed to create the initial blueprint of how cells can fertilize, reproduce, and develop. After that, no more interventions or miraculous acts are required to progress the fetus through its development. TEs also differ on whether the soul is a supernatural creation that is implanted into the physical human body, or whether the soul is an emergent property of humankind.

Dr. Scott went out of her way to distinguish between religion and science. Surprisingly (to me), she from the outset made room for religion. When asked explicitly about her religious faith later in the Q&A, she distanced herself from the question and claimed that it had no place in this forum. This was a talk about science education and not about her private religious beliefs. It seemed clear to me that the questioner was pushing for a “Darwinian evolution leads to atheism” type position and Dr. Scott refused to go there. The talk was sponsored in part by a new student group at CSU, Leaders in Free Thought (LIFT), who were probably disappointed with all of this. I was glad to see it and it clearly set the tone of the rest of the talk. Given this I could have seen a local ASA chapter (not yet existent) or our CSU Christian Faculty Network help sponsor this talk.

Interestingly, during the panel discussion this thread was continued. The question of religious belief came up again and all of the panelists were quick to say that education about evolution had nothing necessarily to do with religious belief. One panelist was a self-admitted religious person but from a non-Christian perspective. During the panel Q&A a couple of apparent evangelical questioners asked about how the teachers handled or should handle students who were convinced young-earth creationists (YEC) or intelligent design (ID) advocates. Somewhat shocking to me, all agreed that the issue was not whether the students agreed with what they were being taught, but whether they understood the material. Frankly, I was pleased to hear this and was glad that public school educators respected the private opinions of their students and their families. Their goal was to teach science (at least the content side–there was a significant emphasis on the importance of teaching scientific methodology) as what scientists currently think.

There was a certain inconsistency, however, and I attempted to raise this in the Q&A time. I’m not sure I was clear, because the responses were somewhat generic. Both Dr. Scott’s talk and the panel began with a reference to surveys that indicated that most Americans don’t accept evolution and that this indicated a failure of American science education. The inconsistency that I see is that “accepting evolution” doesn’t seem to be the goal of science education if all that is important is that students understand what scientists think. Thus, the framing of the question is critical here. Is the question “Do you accept evolution?” or “Do you understand evolution?” The only answer I got was that in polls the framing of the question is critical.

I’d be curious about what ASAers think about this issue. Is the goal of science education (at least the content side) merely knowing what scientists think or is it accepting it as true (within the limitations that all scientific knowledge has a certain tentativity to it)? At what point in the science education or science practice process does the requirement that scientists accept the conclusions of science kick in? Granting of the Ph.D.? Granting of tenure? Peer review? Obviously, the answers differ depending on the institution and the nature of the research journal.

The title of Dr. Scott’s lecture was “Not Over After Dover” and was a review of the various court rulings forbidding the teaching of creationism and intelligent design in the public school. While in general I am not very sympathetic with demarcationist arguments and I’m not at all convinced that the current views of separation of church and state are the right interpretation of the Constitution, I was nearly in total agreement with the scientific arguments presented (critical of YEC and ID). Her clear definition of evolution, her distinction between common ancestry and various mechanisms of evolution, and her rebuttals of Dembski and Behe were all things that I agreed with and have used in my own presentations. In general, I would call NCBE a friend of ASA.

I had two pieces of advice for Dr. Scott.

1. That she recognize that the search for and recognition of intelligent agents is scientific. After all, her background is physical anthropology. Anthropology, archaeology, the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI), forensics, etc. are all scientific. Social and human sciences all deal with intelligent agents. Admit it, and then explain why ID is different. When I mentioned this, her response was positive. Her explanation had to do with the identity and scientific accessibility of the designer. We recognize ID because we are familiar with designers that design similar things. All the disciplines mentioned follow that pattern. I think this is close to what Randy Isaac is getting at in his review of  Meyer’s Signature in the Cell (most recent post in that series). God as designer is unlike any designer we know. Not only is his handiwork designed, he upholds and controls the very substances things are made of, the laws that govern it all, and any evolutionary history that may have led to their being.

2. That she appeal to evangelical supporters of evolution (ASA, Francis Collins, Denis Lamoureux, B.B. Warfield, John Stott, perhaps Tim Keller, etc.). Appeal to Roman Catholic or even mainline Protestant thinkers, doesn’t really help convince an evangelical. The evangelical needs to see fellow evangelicals that they trust in order to move ahead here. Appeal to Catholic or possibly theologically liberal theologians does no good. Even appeal to ASA, Collins, Lamoureaux, and others willing to “give up” a historical Adam and Eve or a historical Fall will not be accepted. While I’m not questioning anyone’s evangelicalism in saying this, it is largely the case that once you have given up a historical Adam and Eve that many (maybe most) evangelicals will suggest that you have moved significantly in the direction toward the theological liberal. The fact that there are examples of thinkers on this issue who don’t do this (Warfield, Stott, Keller, myself, etc.) will enable some to accept evolution. Dr. Scott agreed with my assessment here but pointed out that her motivation was primarily to show that accepting evolution was not inherently atheistic. In other words, it was part of her setting the context that being pro-evolution is not to be anti-religious.